UCLA/94/TEP/42; hep-th/9411110

The Life and Times of Emmy Noether

Contributions of Emmy Noether to Particle Physics

arXiv:hep-th/9411110v2 23 Nov 1994

Nina Byers
Physics Department, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90024
(November 11, 1994)

Abstract
The contributions of Emmy Noether to particle physics fall into two categories. One is given under the rubric of Noethers theorem, and the other
may be described as her important contributions to modern mathematics. In
physics literature, the terminology Noethers theorem is used to refer to one
or another of two theorems, or their converses, proved by Noether. These will
be discussed along with an historical account of how they were discovered and
what their impact has been. This paper also gives, for physicists, an overview
of the important role of Emmy Noethers work in the development of modern
mathematics. In addition a brief biography is given.

Typeset using REVTEX

Presented

at the International Conference on THE HISTORY OF ORIGINAL IDEAS AND

BASIC DISCOVERIES IN PARTICLE PHYSICS, Erice, Italy, 29 July - 4 August 1994. To be

published in the Proceedings of the Conference.

DOROTHY HODGKIN 1910-1994

I would like to dedicate this lecture to Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin, the chemist and x-ray
crystallographer, who died last Friday. She was one of the great scientists of our century.
Using x-ray crystallographic methods she got out the chemical and three-dimensional structure of complicated molecules, changing organic chemistry forever and breaking ground for
modern biology. She was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1964 for her work, particularly for
getting out the structure of penicillin and vitamin B12 . But this was only a step along the
way to the pinnacle of her scientific career. In 1969 she got out the structure of insulin,
thirty-five years after she began work on this molecule. The importance of these discoveries
for chemistry, modern biology and medicine cannot be overstated.

I. INTRODUCTION

Dorothy Hodgkin, Emmy Noether, and an eminent physicist here with us today, Chien
Shiung Wu, are examples of women whose love of science enabled them to make great
contributions in the face of daunting adversity. In the nineteenth century women were not
admitted into universities and laboratories. In Germany and Austria the formal education of
women ended at age fourteen. In 1898 the Academic Senate of the University of Erlangen,
where Emmy Noethers father was professor, declared the admission of women students
would overthrow all academic order. [1] Women with intellectual interests, born toward
the end of the 19th century, worked as governesses and language teachers from age fourteen
until the universities finally admitted women. Some of these became great scientists - Marie
Curie, Lise Meitner, Emmy Noether. As the 19th century drew to a close, the exclusion
of women from academic and intellectual life began to be breached. Then and in the first
few decades of the 20th century, womens colleges were founded, women were admitted to
universities and the process whereby it became possible for women to participate in scientific
discovery began.

In 1900 Emmy Noether was eighteen, and women were finally permitted to attend lectures
at the University in Erlangen. They were not allowed to matriculate, only to attend lectures
- with permission of the instructor. Some lecturers refused to lecture if there was a woman in
the room. Emmy Noether was thus at the forefront of the entry of women into academic life.
One might speculate whether it is a remarkable accident that a woman of genius was among
the first, or whether the social, psychological and emotional barriers against women doing
science were so formidable that only women of extremely high ability and determination
were able to overcome them.
Emmy Noether was one of the great mathematicians of the 20th century, as all mathematicians will attest. Not only did she discover the oft quoted theorem which relates
symmetries and conservation laws, she contributed original and fundamental ideas to modern mathematics. The importance of modern mathematical ideas and tools to discoveries in
theoretical elementary particle physics this century is self-evident.
It is fitting therefore that we acknowledge her contributions at this Conference on the
History of Original Ideas and Basic Discoveries in Particle Physics. To discuss her contributions to particle physics, it is useful to separate them into two groups. One is centered
around the theorem we call Noethers theorem, and the other her seminal contributions to
the development of modern mathematics which has been so influential in theoretical particle
physics. I will discuss the theorem in the next section, its importance, and the historical context in which it was discovered. The theorem was published in 1918 and essentially ignored
in physics literature for forty years. There is something of a puzzle as to why it lay fallow
for so long since its relevance to physics, and in particular quantum mechanics, is so clear
to us today. From our modern perspective the theorem reduces the search for conservation
laws and selection rules to the systematic study of the symmetries of the Lagrangian, and
conversely also leads from observed conservation laws to the discovery of symmetries. In
section III is some history which may be relevant to why Noethers theorem was so rarely
quoted in physics literature from 1918 to 1958. Section IV is a overview for physicists of her
original and highly influential contributions to modern mathematics, in particular abstract
3

algebra. Section V is a brief biographical sketch of her life and work including some details
about her father and brother who were also mathematicians. A list of her published papers
is in Appendix A; in Appendix B is her summary of the work published before 1919; in
Appendix C are 72 articles in physics and mathematics journals listed in a recent issue of
Current Contents whose titles refer to Noether charges, Noether currents, Noether theorem,
etc. - of these 26 appear to be in journals of pure mathematics and the rest in physics and
mathematical physics journals!

II. THE THEOREM

The theorem we so often quote was published in a paper entitled Invariante Variationsprobleme in the Gottingen Nachrichten in 1918. [2] It is a very important paper for physics
because it proves very generally the fundamental relation of symmetries and conservation
laws. The theorem reduces the search for conservation laws and selection rules to a systematic study of the symmetries of the system, and vice versa, for systems governed by an action
principle whose action integral is invariant under a continuous group of symmetry transformations. Noethers paper combines the theory of Lie groups with the calculus of variations,
and proves two theorems, referred to as I and II, and their converses. Both theorems and
their converses are called Noethers theorem in the physics literature. Theorem I pertains
to symmetries described by finite-dimensional Lie groups such as the rotation group, the
Lorentz group, SU(3) or U(1). Theorem II applies for infinite-dimensional Lie groups such
as gauged U(1) or SU(3) or the group of diffeomorphisms of general relativity. It is likely
that theorem II was of principal interest at the time the paper was written because, applied
to the theory of general relativity, from it one obtains energy-momentum conservation as
a consequence of the general coordinate invariance of the theory. Similarly, and somewhat
more simply, one may obtain current conservation as a consequence of gauge invariance in
electrodynamics. Emmy Noether did this work soon after Einstein completed the theory of
relativity and Hilbert derived the field equations from an action principle. Hilbert was con4

cerned by the apparent failure of proper energy conservation laws in the general theory. [3]
It is characteristic of Emmy Noether that, having begun this work in response to Hilberts
questions regarding energy-momentum conservation in the general theory, she got results
of utmost generality and found theorems that not only illuminate this question but many
other conservation laws as well. I will describe her two theorems and the historical setting
in which they became known.
Theorem I applies when the symmetry group is a finite-dimensional Lie group; a Lie
group with a finite number N of infinitesimal generators. Examples are the Lorentz group
with N = 6, and ungauged SU(3) and U(1) with N = 8 and N = 1, respectively. These
generators are the elements of the Lie algebra. Theorem I states, if the system is invariant
with respect to the Lie group, there is a conserved quantity corresponding to each element
of the Lie algebra. The result is very general and holds for discrete and continuous, classical
and quantum systems. For a field theory, theorem I states that there is a locally conserved
current for each element of the algebra; i.e., that there are N linearly independent currents
j(a) (x) which obey j(a) = 0 where a is a Lie algebra label and = 0, 1, 2, 3 a space-time
label. Thus one has
(a)

j(a) = 0 j0 + j(a) = 0

(1)

for each infinitesimal generator of the group. From this we obtain conservation of the
corresponding charge
(a)

(a)

d3 x j0 .

(2)

For quantum systems these charges are operators whose commutation relations are those of
the Lie algebra.
Theorem II applies when the symmetry group is an infinite-dimensional Lie group (not
the limiting case of N for which theorem I continues to apply). Examples are the
gauged SU(3) and U(1) groups of QCD and QED, and the group of general coordinate
transformations of general relativity. Theorem II states that certain dependencies hold
5

between the left hand sides of the Euler equations of motion when the action is invariant with
respect to an infinite-dimensional Lie group. In the case of general relativity, using Hilberts
Lagrangian and the invariance of the action under general coordinate transformations, the
dependencies of theorem II are Bianchi identities. The four Bianchi identities G; = 0 give
the energy-momentum conservation law, as can be seen from the following. For Einstein
gravity coupled to electromagnetism and/or matter, the field equations are G = 8T
where T is the energy-momentum tensor of the electromagnetic and/or matter fields.
Theorem II thus gives T; = 0, which is the law of energy-momentum conservation in the
general theory. Similarly, for QED theorem II gives current conservation as a consequence
of gauge invariance.
For the mixed case where the symmetry group is the union of a finite-dimensional and an
infinite-dimensional Lie group, Noether found both types of results; i.e., conservation laws
and dependencies.
The paper was submitted to the University of Gottingen in 1919 as her Habilitation
thesis. Actually Hilbert had tried to obtain a university Habilitation for Noether in 1915
when she came to Gottingen. Consideration was refused by the academic senate on grounds
she was a woman, and Hilbert uttered his famous quote I dont see why the sex of the
candidate is relevant - this is afterall an academic institution not a bath house. The
Habilitation was granted in 1919. It is interesting to read how she describes her results
in her submission. She says the paper deals with arbitrary finite- or infinite-dimensional
continuous groups, in the sense of Lie, and discloses the consequences when a variational
problem is invariant under such a group. The general results contain, as special cases, the
theorems on first integrals as they are known in mechanics and, furthermore, the conservation
theorems and the dependencies among the field equations in the theory of relativity while
on the other hand, the converse of these theorems is also given ... [4] In the Abstract to the
paper she wrote The variational problems here considered are such as to admit a continuous
group (in Lies sense); the conclusions that emerge for the differential equations find their
most general expression in the theorems formulated in section I and proved in the following
6

sections. Concerning differential equations that arise from problems of variation, far more
precise statements can be made than about arbitrary differential equations admitting a
group, which are the subject of Lies researches. For special groups and variational problems,
this combination of methods is not new; I may cite Hamel and Herglotz for special finitedimensional groups, Lorentz and his pupils ( e.g., Fokker, Weyl and Klein ) for special
infinite-dimensional groups. In particular Kleins second Note and the present developments
have been mutually influenced by each other. In this regard I refer to the concluding remarks
of Kleins Note. [5]

The Note of Klein she refers to is entitled Uber

die Differentialgesetze f
ur die Erhaltung
von Impuls and Energie in der Einsteinschen Gravitationstheorie. It ends with an acknowledgement to Noether saying I must not fail to thank Frl. Noether again for her valuable
participation in my new work... Her general treatment is given in these Nachrichten in a
following Note. His work was presented to the Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften at a 19 July
1918 meeting, and he says he presented her more general results the following week. [6]
Noethers interest in the general theory was somewhat aside from the main path of her
mathematical research as reflected in her publication list (Appendix A) but very understandable since she came to work in Gottingen in 1915 at Hilberts invitation, and Hilbert
says he asked her to look into the question of energy conservation in Einsteins theory. [3]
Gottingen, at that time, was the world center of mathematics; Hilbert had assembled there
a stellar array of mathematicians. Felix Klein, Hermann Minkowski, and Karl Schwarzschild
were among them. There was intense interest in the general theory of relativity. Hermann
Weyl said Hilbert was over head and ears in the general theory, and for Klein the theory
and its connection with his old ideas of the Erlangen Program brought the last flareup of his
mathematical interests and production. [7] Noether published two papers directly relating
to the general theory - No. 12 and 13 in the her publication list. Weyl characterized these
papers as follows. For two of the most significant aspects of general relativity theory she
gave the correct and universal mathematical formulation: first, the reduction of the problem
of differential invariants to a purely algebraic one by the use of normal coordinates; and
7

second, identities between the left sides of Eulers equations of a variational problem which
occur when the [ action ] integral is invariant with respect to a group of transformations
involving arbitrary functions. The paper we are considering here is the second of these
two. It is interesting to examine further the historical situation. In the summer of 1915
Einstein gave six lectures in Gottingen on generalizing the special theory of relativity to include gravity. At this time, according to Pais [8], he did not yet have the theory completed
but he felt he had ... succeeded to convince Hilbert and Klein ...... In the fall, Einstein
found, at last, found the correct field equations. At the same time Hilbert also got the same
equations by writing a Lagrangian for the theory and deriving the field equations from an
action principle. Weyl was very impressed, as was everyone, and he quickly wrote his book
Raum - Zeit - Materie. The first edition was published in 1918. It begins Einsteins theory
of relativity has advanced our ideas of the structure of the cosmos a step further. It is as if
a wall which separated us from truth has collapsed. [9]
Hilbert wrote an article entitled Grundlagen der Physik and remarked there on the failure
in the general theory of ordinary laws of energy- momentum conservation; Klein published
a correspondence with Hilbert on this. [3] Proof of local energy conservation is not clear as
it is in Newtonian theories. The conservation laws in those theories were called proper by
Hilbert and he found that they failed in the general theory. After proving that the by now
accepted form of the energy-momentum conservation law follows from the invariance of the
theory under general coordinate transformations, Noether concludes her paper with a section
entitled A HILBERTIAN ASSERTION that begins From the foregoing, finally, we also
obtain the proof of a Hilbertian assertion about the connection of the failure of proper laws
of conservation of energy with general relativity, and prove this assertion in a generalized
group theory version. She proved that generally one has what they then called improper
energy relationships when the symmetry group is an infinite-dimensional Lie group, and in
addition to the general theory of relativity she gave another example of this. It was her
style, starting from a specific case, to get the most general results.
The generality of her results is characteristic of the whole body of her work. The overall
8

distinguishing characteristic of her major contributions to modern mathematics stems from

her ability to abstract matters of general importance from details. According to her student
van der Waerden, her work was guided by a maxim he described as follows. [10] Any
relationships between numbers, functions and operations only become transparent, generally
applicable, and fully productive after they have been isolated from their particular objects
and been formulated as universally valid concepts. Her originality lay in the fundamental
structure of her creative mind, in the mode of her thinking and in the aim of her endeavors.
Her aim was directed specifically towards scientific insight.
In the 1916 - 1918 period her work was widely recognized. Einstein wrote to Hilbert
in the spring of 1918 Yesterday I received from Miss Noether a very interesting paper on
invariant forms. I am impressed that one can comprehend these matters from so general a
viewpoint. It would not have done the Old Guard at Gottingen any harm had they picked up
a thing or two from her. She certainly knows what she is doing. [1] He is probably refering
to No. 12 in Appendix A. This is the only one of Noethers papers cited in in Paulis 1921
Encyklopaedie der mathematischen Wissenschaften article on relativity. It seems odd that
her didnt also reference No. 13. Perhaps this was a harbinger of things to come. In the
twenties and thirties, and indeed for about forty years, Noether was rarely cited in the
literature though her results were given often. It is not clear why this is so. Perhaps it is
because of an ambiguity having to do with Kleins Note. In the acknowledgement he makes
to her contributions to his work, there is perhaps some insinuation that he was somehow
responsible for her results. [6]
There is no paucity of references to Noethers theorems in contemporary literature. As
regards theorem II, Peter G. Bergmann wrote in 1968: Noethers theorem forms one of
the cornerstones of work in general relativity. General relativity is characterized by the
principle of general covariance according to which the laws of nature are invariant with
respect to arbitrary curvilinear coordinate transformations that satisfy minimal conditions
of continuity and differentiability. A discussion of the consequences in terms of Noethers
theorem would have to include all of the work on ponderomotive laws, ... [1] Feza Gursey
9

wrote in 1983: The key to the relation of symmetry laws to conservation laws is Emmy
Noethers celebrated theorem. ... Before Noethers theorem the principle of conservation
of energy was shrouded in mystery, leading to the obscure physical systems of Mach and
Ostwald. Noethers simple and profound mathematical formulation did much to demystify
physics. ... Since all the laws of fundamental physics can be expressed in terms of quantum
fields which are associated with symmetry groups at each point and satisfy differential
equations derived from an action principle, the conservation laws of physics and the algebra of
time-dependent charges can all be constructed using Noethers methods. The only additional
conserved quantities not connected with the Lie algebra are topological invariants that are
related to the global properties of the fields. These have also become important in the last
few years. With this exception, Noethers work is of paramount importance to physics and
the interpretation of fundamental laws in terms of group theory.
Now Noethers theorem is a basic tool in the arsenal of the theorist, and is taught in
every class on quantum field theory and particle physics. It is curious that it seems to have
lain fallow in the physics literature for nearly forty years being mentioned very rarely from
1920 to 1960. In the next section are some further comments and conjectures regarding this.

III. A PUZZLE

The puzzle is why were there so few references to E. Noether in the physics literature
for nearly forty years? [11] Now her name appears very frequently, and most textbooks on
classical and quantum mechanics and classical and quantum field theory have sections entitled Noethers theorem. Actually her results did not fall into obscurity but they were often
given without a reference to her. This may have begun with Hermann Weyls important
book Raum - Zeit - Materie in which he derives the energy-momentum conservation law for
relativity from general coordinate invariance. He does not refer to Klein or Noether in the
text. In a footnote he references the Klein paper, and adds Cf., in the same periodical, the
general formulations given by E. Noether. The English version in which one finds this is a
10

translation of a 1919 edition. [9] In the first edition, dated Easter 1918 in Mecklenburg, he
gets an energy-momentum conservation law from the field equations. Obviously he was not
aware then of Noethers theorem and Kleins Note. In the preface to the 1919 edition he says
Chapter IV, which is in the main devoted to Einsteins theory of gravitation, has been subjected to a very considerable revision in consideration of the various important works that
have appeared, in particular those that refer to the Principle of Energy-momentum. Perhaps because Weyls book was very important, and he did not mention Noethers theorem,
others followed suit.
There is one important book written in the twenties that mentions Noethers theorem.
A short subsection devoted to Noethers theorem is in Courant and Hilberts Methods of
Mathematical Physics; the German edition was first published in 1924. [12]
Perhaps a more substantial reason for the paucity of references to Noethers theorem in
the twenties and thirties, than that Weyl didnt mention it, is that her theorems were not felt
to be of fundamental importance. In that period, energy conservation and general relativity
were not as firmly established as they are now. [13] Of course no one doubted macroscopic
energy conservation; the first law of thermodynamics had been firmly established by 1850.
But the discovery of radioactivity, particularly the continuous spectrum, raised serious
doubts regarding energy conservation as a fundamental principle. Though Chadwick had
presented evidence of a continuous spectrum in 1914, his results were not definitive and
some thought that the electrons were monoenergetic and the observed continuous spectrum an experimental artifact. Lise Meitner was among those who believed that energy
conservation was a fundamental principle and that there must be narrow lines underlying
the spectrum. It was only in 1927 that Chadwick and Ellis gave convincing evidence in
the form of calorimetric measurements that the spectrum was continuous. Meitner then
confirmed those results in her own laboratory, and this provoked Paulis proposal of the
neutrino in December 1929. [14] Though energy-momentum conservation had been clearly
demonstrated experimentally in Compton scattering in 1925, Paulis neutrino hypothesis
did not immediately reinstate energy conservation as a fundamental principle. For example,
11

Bohr proposed energy nonconservation in nuclear processes in his Faraday lecture at Caltech
in 1930. He wrote to Mott in October 1929 I am preparing an account on statistics and
conservation in quantum mechanics in which I also hope to give convincing arguments for
the view that the problem of -ray expulsion lies outside the reach of the classical conservation principles of energy and momentum. [13] Pais writes that Bohr continued to consider
the possibility that energy is not conserved in -decay until 1936. You might think that
Fermis incorporation of Paulis neutrino hypothesis in his theory of beta decay (published
December 1933) would have reestablished the credibility of energy conservation as a fundamental principle. However, in 1936 there were experimental indications (later proved false)
of failure of the conservation laws in the Compton effect and, for example, Dirac wrote a
paper entitled Does conservation of energy hold in atomic processes? [15] It was not until
1939 that measurements of -spectra in allowed transitions confirmed Fermis theory. [16]
Energy conservation in atomic processes was not in doubt, at least not for long; but it does
seem that energy conservation as a fundamental principle was in doubt. Perhaps at some
level it remained so all the way until 1956, when the definitive experimental verification of
energy conservation in decay was achieved with the direct detection of e by Reines and
Cowan. [17]
With the advent of quantum mechanics, one might have thought that Noethers theorem
would have been invoked. The connection between symmetries and conservation laws was
of fundamental interest. Nevertheless it is remarkable that the only reference to Emmy
Noether in Weyls Theory of Groups and Quantum Mechanics is to her paper generalizing the
Jordan-Holder theorem. [18] He uses her theorem II in his treatment of the Dirac electron in
interaction with the electromagnetic field, but without reference to her paper. From gauge
invariance of the action, he obtains conservation of current and then shortly thereafter
says Just as the theorem of conservation of electricity follows from the gauge invariance,
the theorems for conservation of energy and momentum follow from the circumstance that
the action integral, formulated as in the general theory of relativity, is invariant under
arbitrary (infinitesimal) transformations of coordinates. Perhaps he omitted referencing
12

her 1918 paper because by the time his book on group theory and quantum mechanics was
written (1928), her more recent work overshadowed, for mathematicians, her theorems on
symmetries and conservation laws. Nevertheless, she might have benefited from multiple
citations of her work. Her status in the University was far below what she merited on the
basis of her accomplishments and ability. Weyl had been a visitor to Gottingen in 1926-27.
In the address he gave at her memorial service he said When I was called permanently
to Gottingen in 1930, I earnestly tried to obtain a better position for her, because I was
ashamed to occupy such a preferred position beside her whom I knew to be my superior
as a mathematician in many respects. I did not succeed... Tradition, prejudice, external
considerations weighted the balance against her scientific merits and scientific greatness, by
that time denied by no one. In my Gottingen years, 1930-1933, she was without doubt the
strongest center of mathematical activity there, considering both the fertility of her scientific
research program and her influence upon a large circle of pupils. [7]
Perhaps another reason Noethers theorem was not given much publicity was because it
may have felt awkward for pre-WWII authors to have credited a woman for an important
contribution to their work.
From a contemporary perspective it seems surprising that Weyl did not use Noethers
theorem I to obtain, for example, conservation of angular momentum from rotational invariance. This, however, doesnt fit into the approach of his book because he uses a Hamiltonian
rather than a Lagrangian formulation of quantum mechanics.
In the 1950s when Lagrangian formulations became more prevalent, references to
Noethers theorem began appear in the literature. Kastrup describes the major papers that
seem to bring it forward. [11] The first quantum field theory text I have found that mentions Noethers theorem is Bogoliubov and Shirkovs Introduction to the Theory of Quantized
Fields. [19] This book presents classical and quantum field theories from a Lagrangian point
of view, and devotes a subsection to Noethers theorem (theorem I) in what is essentially
the first chapter. Gregor Wentzels book Quantum Theory of Fields, widely used in the
forties and fifties, does not use it or refer to it, though in a footnote to the section entitled
13

Conservation Laws he remarks that the validity of the conservation laws is known to be
connected with certain invariance properties of the Hamiltonian. [20] In the text he derives
energy-momentum conservation when the Hamiltonian does not depend upon space-time
coordinates by construction of a divergence-free symmetric energy-momentum tensor using
the field equations. His book generally gives a Hamiltonian rather than a Lagrangian formulation of quantum field theory. In the footnote mentioned above, Wentzel references Pauli
and Heisenberg [21]. In their famous papers on quantum field theory, there is no reference
to Noether. Theirs is also a Hamiltonian approach to the subject.
The frequency with which Noethers theorem is referred to in physics literature, particularly particle physics literature, increased substantially after 1958. This was the year that
the Feynman and Gell-Mann paper on the V-A theory of weak interactions was published.
[22] Though no reference is made to Noethers theorem, Feynman and Gell-Mann clearly
point to the connection of conserved currents and symmetries. They propose in that paper
the conserved vector current (CVC) hypothesis, observing that the decay rates of the muon
and O 14 give nearly equal values for the Fermi coupling constant. From this observation they
suggest that the Fermi coupling constant may be a weak charge related to the conserved
weak vector current as in (2). Like electric charge, it appears that it is not renormalized by
the strong interactions and is the same for leptons and hadrons. Probably with reference
to conservation of the electromagnetic current as a consequence of gauge invariance, they
presciently seem to be suggesting that another gauge principle may be involved; the final
sentence of their paper reads in part: it may be fruitful to analyze further the idea that the
vector part of the weak coupling is not renormalized; ... and to study the meaning of the
transformation groups which are involved. Another paper that was influential at around
the same time was Schwingers 1957 Annals of Physics paper A Theory of the Fundamental Interactions. [23] In his theory, internal symmetries are described by finite-dimensional
Lie groups and he uses, without reference to Noether, her theorem I. Indeed it plays an
important role in his theory.
It seems to me that these papers along with the coming back into vogue of Lagrangian
14

field theory, led people to feel that Noethers theorem was important or, anyway, useful.
Previously, and to some extent still at that time, people used a Hamiltonian approach for
theoretical elementary particle physics even though Schwingers formulation of quantum
field theory in terms of an action principle had been enormously influential. Up until this
time and even a bit beyond, most theorists were not thinking of theories of strong or weak
interactions as Lagrangian field theories governed by an action principle. [24] Schwingers
1957 paper is somewhat exceptional in this respect and perhaps, for some at least, led the
way. As long as Lagrangian field theory was not seen as the starting point for a theory of
elementary particles, Noethers theorem was not as consequential as it later became. Later
when theorists began to use path integrals, Lie groups, and gauge symmetries, Noethers
theorem became a basic tool in their arsenal.
It may be an amusing coincidence that two of the possible roadblocks to frequent mention
of Noethers theorem in the older literature disappeared at about the same time. Final
confirmation of the principle of energy conservation by Reines and Cowans direct detection
of e occured at roughly the same time as widespread recognition of the importance of Lie
groups in Lagrangian formulations of quantum field theories began.
Perhaps we will learn that energy-momentum conservation is not a fundamental principle
after all; i.e., that the diffeomorphism symmetry of space-time is violated at small distances.
Nevertheless Noethers theorem will remain an important contribution to physics because it
gives, in general, the relation between conservation laws and symmetries. Furthermore the
theorem formulated by Noether with such depth and generality has contributed very importantly to modern physics both in the discoveries of symmetries of fundamental interactions
and in finding the dynamical consequences of symmetries. I believe I would not be alone in
asserting that her theorems have played a key role in the development of theoretical physics.

15

IV. CONTRIBUTIONS BEYOND THE THEOREM

As important as the theorem is, it by no means sums up her contributions to modern

physics. From her point of view, and that of her mathematical colleagues, the two 1918
papers constituted a tangent to a main road of accomplishment. This road was to establish
modern abstract algebra. It is self-evident that modern mathematics is, and has been, a very
important contributor to discovery in particle physics. Modern abstract algebra profoundly
affected modern mathematics in general; to quote Michael Atiyah Modern mathematics,
in all its branches, has been influenced by a more liberal and ambitious use of algebra. In
recent years this is also increasingly true of theoretical physics. Lie groups, commutation
relations, supersymmetry, cohomology, and representation theory are widely used in theoretical models for particle physics. Emmy Noethers belief in the power of abstract algebra
has been amply justified. [25] Nathan Jacobson wrote in the introduction to her collected
works that Emmy Noether was one of the most influential mathematicians of this century.
The development of abstract algebra, which is one of the most distinctive innovations of
twentieth century mathematics, is largely due to her - in published papers, in lectures, and
in personal influence on her contemporaries. [26] Concepts, methods and results in group
theory, algebraic topology, cohomology theory, homotopy theory, etc. are valuable tools
for understanding physics. To give some recent examples, methods and concepts from algebraic topology are very usefully employed in analytic studies of gauge field theories on
the lattice [27]; and higher homotopy groups are found useful in analyzing possible forms of
spontaneous symmetry breaking. [28]
In this section I will give a brief overall summary of Emmy Noethers contributions drawn
principally from writings of Weyl [7], Jacobson [26] and van der Waerden [10]. Since we are
not mathematicians, it is difficult to give here a complete and accurate account of her major
contributions. A list of her published papers is given in Apppendix A. Hermann Weyl said,
however, that one cannot read the scope of her accomplishments from individual results
of her papers alone; she originated above all a new and epoch-making style of thinking
16

in algebra. He writes about her work as follows. Emmy Noethers scientific production
fell into three clearly distinct epochs; (1) the period of relative dependence, 1907-1919; (2)
the investigations grouped around the general theory of ideals 1920-1926; (3) the study of
the non-commutative algebras, their representations by linear transformations, and their
application to the study of commutative number fields and their arithmetics. As regards
the first epoch, I have already written about the 1918 papers; the other dozen or so papers
show her thinking developing from the old ( 19th century ) ways of doing algebra and
invariant theory to the new ideas of what Weyl calls the second epoch. She summarized
her work in that first epoch in her Habilitation submission. I have included that here as
Appendix B.
To summarize her work after 1919, let me begin by quoting the Russian topologist P.
S. Alexandrov. When we speak of Emmy Noether as a mathematician we mean not so
much the early works but instead the period beginning about 1920 when she struck the
way into a new kind of algebra. .....[She] herself is partly responsible for the fact that her
work of the early period is rarely given the attention [among mathematicians] that it would
naturally deserve: with the singlemindedness that was part of her nature, she herself was
ready to forget what she had done in the early years of her scientific life, since she considered
those results to have been a diversion from the main path of her research, which was the
creation of a general, abstract algebra. It was she who taught us to think in terms of simple
and general algebraic concepts - homomorphic mappings, groups and rings with operators,
ideals ... theorems such as the homomorphism and isomorphism theorems, concepts such
as the ascending and descending chain conditions for subgroups and ideals, or the notion
of groups with operators were first introduced by Emmy Noether and have entered into
the daily practice of a wide range of mathematical disciplines. ... We need only glance at
Pontryagins work on the theory of continuous groups, the recent work of Kolmogorov on
the combinatorial topology of locally compact spaces, the work of Hopf on the theory of
continuous mappings, to say nothing of van der Waerdens work on algebraic geometry, in
order to sense the influence of Emmy Noethers ideas. This influence is also keenly felt in
17

H. Weyls book Gruppentheorie und Quantenmechanik. [29] All who have written about
her recall that she always worked with a lively group of mathematicians around her. She
gave lecture courses in Gottingen and elsewhere and loved to talk mathematics with groups
of like-minded mathematicians. She had many very good students [4] and her influence
extended well beyond her published papers. A notable example is given by Jacobson.
As is quite well known, it was Noether who persuaded P.S. Alexandrov and Heinz Hopf to
introduce group theory into combinatorial topology and formulate the then existing simplical
homology theory in group-theoretic terms in place of the more concrete setting of incidence
matrices. Alexandrov and Hopf say in the preface to their book Topologie (Berlin 1935)
Emmy Noethers general mathematical insights were not confined to her specialty - algebra
- but affected anyone who came in touch with her work.
It was in the second epoch according to Weyl, 1920-26, that she founded the approach
of modern abstract algebra. Jacobson describes how this came about; numbers refer to the
list in Appendix A. Abstract algebra can be dated from the publication of two papers by
Noether, the first, a joint paper with Schmeidler, Moduln in nichtkommutativen Bereichen
... (no.17) and Idealtheorie in Ringbereichen (no.19). Of these papers, ..., the first is of
somewhat specialized interest and its influence was negligible. Only in retrospect does one
observe that it contained a number of important ideas whose rediscovery by others had a
significant impact on the development of the subject. The truly monumental work Idealtheorie in Ringbereichen belongs to one of the mainstreams of abstract algebra, commutative
ring theory, and may be regarded as the first paper in this vast subject... Though the
terminology - ideal theory, rings, Noetherian rings, the chain condition, etc. - is unfamiliar
to most physicists, one can read Weyls lucid account in his memorial address and gain some
understanding of why Jacobson says By now her contributions have become so thoroughly
absorbed into our mathematical culture that only rarely are they specifically attributed to
her.
In 1924 B. L. van der Waerden came to Gottingen having just finished his university
course at Amsterdam. According to Kimberling, van der Waerden then mastered her the18

ories, enhanced them with findings of his own, and like no one else promulgated her ideas.
[1] In her obituary, van der Waerden wrote that her abstract, nonvisual conceptualizations
met with little recognition at first. This changed as the productivity of her methods was
gradually perceived even by those who did not agree with them. ... Prominent mathematicians from all over Germany and abroad came to consult with her and attend her lectures.
... And today, carried by the strength of her thought, modern algebra appears to be well
on its way to victory in every part of the civilized world [10] His book Moderne Algebra,
as is credited on the title page, is based on the lectures of Emmy Noether and Emil Artin.
According to Garrett Birkhoff, this book precipitated a revolution in the history of algebra.
Both the axiomatic approach and much of the content of modern algebra dates back to
before 1914. However, even in 1929 its concepts and methods were still considered to have
marginal interest as compared with those of analysis... By exhibiting their mathematical
and philosophical unity, and by showing their power as developed by Emmy Noether and
her younger colleagues (most notably E. Artin, R. Brauer and H. Hasse), van der Waerden
made modern algebra suddenly seem central in mathematics. It is not too much to say
that the freshness and enthusiasm of his exposition electrified the mathematical world. [30]
The first edition of Moderne Algebra was published in 1931. In the 1950s when I was a
graduate student in the University of Chicago, modern algebra certainly appeared central to
us. Though we were graduate students studying physics, modern algebra was a subject we
all aspired to learn. I believe it affected profoundly how modern physicists think and work.
The major papers in the third and final period, 1927-1935, are Hyperkomplexe Grossen
und Darstellungstheorie (no.33), Beweis eines Hauptsatzes in der Theorie der Algebren
(no.38), and Nichtkommutative Algebren (no.40). The reader is refered to Jacobson [3]
for a detailed description of their content and significance from a contemporary point of
view. Weyl says about the work of this period that The theory of non-commutative algebras and their representations was built up by Emmy Noether in a new unified, purely
conceptual manner by making use of all the results that had been accumulated by the ingenious labors of decades by Frobenius, Dickson, Wedderburn and others. She found the idea
19

of automorphism useful, and made major contributions to cohomology theory. The work of
this period is of great interest to present-day mathematicians, and theorists are finding it
of value in their analyses of quantum field theories [27] and lattice gauge field theories [28].
It is also important, for example, in modern number theory. According to Jacobson, of
equal importance with [her] specific achievements were Noethers contributions in unifying
the field and providing the proper framework for future research.
According to Weyl of her predecessors in algebra and number theory, Richard Dedekind
was most closely related to her. She edited with Fricke and Ore the collected mathematical
works of Dedekind, and the commentaries are mostly hers. She also edited the correspondence of Georg Cantor and Richard Dedekind. In addition to doing mathematics, giving lectures and lecture courses, supervising doctoral students and writing papers, Emmy Noether
was a voluminous correspondent, especially with Ernst Fischer, a successor to Gordan in
Erlangen; and H. Hasse, and was very active editing for Mathematische Annalen. [4]
The following tribute to Noethers work was written by A. Einstein. In the realm
of algebra, in which the most gifted mathematicians have been busy for centuries, she
discovered methods which have proved of enormous importance... Pure mathematics is, in
its way, the poetry of logical ideas. One seeks the most general ideas of operation which
will bring together in simple, logical and unified form the largest possible circle of formal
relationships. In this effort toward logical beauty spiritual formulas are discovered necessary
for the deeper penetration into the laws of nature. [31]

V. BRIEF BIOGRAPHY

Emmy Noether was born Amalie Emmy Noether in Erlangen, Germany in 1882. Her
father Max was a professor of mathematics in the university. She was born into a mathematical family. There were people of known mathematical ability on her grandmothers side,
and her younger brother Fritz became an applied mathematician. Because both father and
daughter published papers frequently referred to in the mathematical literature, the work
20

done by Max is sometimes confused with that of his daughter. Max was a distinguished
mathematician best known for the papers he published in 1869 and 1872. [32] This work
was important for the development of algebraic geometry; it proved what the mathematicians call Noethers fundamental theorem, or the residue theorem. The theorem specifies
conditions under which a given polynomial F(x,y) can be written as a linear combination
of two given polynomials f and g with polynomial coefficients. Hermann Weyl says about
Maxs work ...Clebsch had introduced Riemanns ideas into the geometric theory of algebraic curves and Noether became, after Clebsch had passed away young, his executor in this
matter: he succeeded in erecting the whole structure of the algebraic geometry of curves on
the basis of the so-called Noether residual theorem. [7] About the man he said ... such is
the impression I gather from his papers and even more from the many obituary biographies
[ he wrote ] .... a very intelligent, warm-hearted harmonious man of many-sided interests
and sterling education. Max was successor to Felix Klein. Klein made Erlangen famous by
announcing the Erlangen Program while he was professor there. The Erlangen Program was
to classify and study geometries according to properties which remain invariant under appropriate transformation groups. With this progam various geometries previously studied
separately were put under one unifying theory which today still serves as a guiding principle
in geometry. [1] Klein left to join Hilbert in Gottingen, and Max Noether and Paul Gordan
were the two Erlangen professors mainly responsible for the mathematical atmosphere in
which Emmy grew up. Little has been written so far about Emmys mother.
During most of the 19th century women were not allowed in European and North American universities and laboratories. The formal education of girls ended at age fourteen in
Germany. However, as Emmy was growing up change was in the air. In 1898 the Academic
Senate in the University of Erlangen declared that the admission of women students would
overthrow all academic order. [2] Nevertheless in 1900 Emmy got permission to attend
lectures. The university registry shows then that two of 986 students attending lectures
were female. However, women were not allowed to matriculate. Emmy attended lectures,
and passed matura examinations at a nearby Gymnasium in 1903. In the winter she went
21

to Gottingen and attended lectures given by Schwarzschild, Minkowski, Klein, and Hilbert.
Of course she was not allowed to enroll. In 1904 it became possible for females to enroll in
the University of Erlangen and take examinations with the same rights as male students.
She returned and did a doctoral thesis under the supervision of her fathers friend and colleague Paul Gordan. The title of her thesis On Complete Systems of Invariants for Ternary
Biquadratic Forms. It contains a tabulation of 331 ternary quartic covariant forms! It was
officially registered in 1908. She was Gordans only doctoral student. [4] She quickly moved
on from this calculational phase to David Hilberts more abstract approach to the theory of
invariants. In a famous paper of 1888, Hilbert gave a proof by contradiction of the existence
of a finite basis for certain invariants. It was the solution to a problem Gordan had worked
on for many years and Gordan, after reading it, exclaimed, Das ist nicht Mathematik; das
ist Theologie. Gordan was an algebraist of the old school.
After obtaining her doctorate, Emmy Noether stayed in Erlangen in an unpaid capacity
doing her own research, supervising doctoral students and occasionally substituting for her
father at his lectures until 1915 when Hilbert invited her to join his team in Gottingen. This
was the most active and distinguished center of mathematical research in Europe. However
the mathematics faculty led by Hilbert and Klein found it impossible to obtain a university
Habilitation for Emmy. Without that she could not teach or even give any University
lectures. Her mathematical colleagues all supported her but at that time the Habilitation
was awarded only to male candidates and Hilbert could not get around this. From 1916 to
1919, when finally she was given Habilitation, she often gave lectures which formally were
Hilberts; the lectures were advertised as Mathematisch-Physikalisches Seminar, [ title ],
Professor Hilbert with the assistance of Frl. Dr. E. Noether. Finally awarded Habilitation,
she could announce her own lectures. She remained, however, in an unpaid position, and
it was not until 1923, when she was 41, that she was given a university position - but only
that of nicht-beamteter ausserordentlicher Professor. The position carried with it no salary.
However, Hilbert was able to arrange for her to have a Lehrauftrag for algebra which carried
a small stipend.
22

In 1933 when the Nazi Party came to power, Jews were forced out of their academic
positions by decree. The Nazis didnt want Jewish science taught in the University. Emmy
Noether was a Jewish woman and lost her position. At that time 3 of the 4 institutes of
mathematics and physics were headed by Jews - Courant, Franck, and Born. They all had to
leave their teaching positions. Hermann Weyl took over from Courant for a while thinking
he could hold things together, that this was a transitory bad patch and that reason would
prevail. Before a year was out he saw otherwise and also left Gottingen. He says of that
period: A stormy time of struggle like this one we spent in Gottingen in the summer of
1933 draws people closely together; thus I have a vivid recollection of these months. Emmy
Noether - her courage, her frankness, her unconcern about her own fate, her conciliatory
spirit - was in the midst of all the hatred and meanness, despair and sorrow surrounding us,
a moral solace. Otto Neugebauers photo of her at the railroad station leaving Gottingen
in 1933 is shown here.
There were only two positions offered Noether in 1933 when she had to flee the Nazis.
One was a visiting professorship at Bryn Mawr supported, in part, by Rockefeller Foundation
funds; and the other was in Somerville College, Oxford, where she was offered a stipend of
fifty pounds aside from living accomodations. She went to Bryn Mawr. While there she was
invited to give a weekly course of two hour lectures at the Institute for Advanced Study in
Princeton. She traveled there by train each week to do so. Jacobson attended those lectures
in 1935 and recollects that she announced a brief recess in her course because she had to
undergo some surgery. Apparently the operation was followed by a virulent infection and she
died quite unexpectedly. According to Weyl, She was at the summit of her mathematical
creative power when she died.
Many people have written about how helpful and influential she was in the work of others.
She not infrequently tended not to have her name included as author on papers to which
she had contributed in order to promote the careers of younger people. She apparently was
quite content with this and didnt feel a necessity to promote her own fame. She lived a
very simple life and is reported to have been quite a happy person though she existed on
23

meager funds. Einstein wrote this tribute to her in his Letter to the Editor of the New York
Times . [31] The efforts of most human beings are consumed in the struggle for their daily
bread, but most of those who are, either through fortune or some special gift, relieved of
this struggle are largely absorbed in further improving their worldly lot. Beneath the effort
directed toward the accumulation of worldly goods lies all too frequently the illusion that this
is the most substantial and desirable end to be achieved; but there is, fortunately, a minority
composed of those who recognize early in their lives that the most beautiful and satisfying
experiences open to humankind are not derived from the outside, but are bound up with
the development of the individuals own feeling, thinking and acting. The genuine artists,
investigators and thinkers have always been persons of this kind. However inconspicuously
the life of these individuals runs its course, none the less the fruits of their endeavors are
the most valuable contributions which one generation can make to its successors.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

It is a pleasure to express my gratitude to the organizers of the Conference for providing

the occasion to write this paper, to Basil Gordon for illuminating mathematical discussions
and close editing of the contents particularly as they deal with mathematics, and to Terry
Tomboulis for helpful conversations.

24

APPENDIX A: PUBLICATION LIST

This list does not contain edited, and annotated, books and papers.

1. Uber
die Bildung des Formensystems der tern
aren biquadratischen Form. Sitz. Ber. d. Physikal.-mediz.
Soziet
at in Erlangen 39 (1907), pp. 176-179.

2. Uber
die Bildung des Formensystems der tern
aren biquadratischen Form. Journal f. d. reine u. angew.
Math. 134 (1908), pp. 23-90.

18. Uber
eine Arbeit des im Kriege gefallenen K. Hentzelt
zur Eliminationstheorie. J. Ber. d. DMV 30 (1921),
p. 101
19. Idealtheorie in Ringbereichen Math. Ann. 83 (1921),
pp. 24-66.
20. Ein algebraisches Kriterium f
ur absolute Irreduzibilit
at. Math Ann. 85 (1922), pp. 26-33.
21. Formale Variationsrechnung und Differentialinvarianten. Encyklop
adie d. math. Wiss. III, 3 (1922), pp.
68-71 (in: R. Weitzenb
ock, Differentialinvarianten).

3. Zur Invariantentheorie der Formen von n Variabeln. J.

Ber. d. DMV 19 (1910), pp. 101-104.

22. Bearbeitung von K. Hentzelt: Zur Theorie der Polynomideale und Resultanten. Math. Ann. 88 (1923),
pp. 53-79.

4. 4. Zur Invariantentheorie der Formen von n Variabeln.

Journal f. d. reine u. Angew. Math. 139 (1911), pp.
118-154.

23. Algebraische und Differentialvarianten.

DMV 32 (1923), pp. 177-184.

5. Rationale Funktionenk
orper.
(1913). pp. 316-319.

J. Ber.

d.

DMV 22

6. K
orper und Systeme rationaler Funktionen.
Ann. 76 (1915), pp. 161-196.

Math.

7. Der Endlichkeitssatz der Invarianten endlicher Gruppen. Math. Ann. 77 (1916), pp. 89-92.

8. Uber
ganze rationale Darstellung der Invarianten eines
Systems von beliebig vielen Grundformen. Math.
Ann. 77 (1916), pp. 93-102. (cf. No. 16).
9. Die allgemeinsten Bereiche aus ganzen transzendenten
Zahlen. Math. Ann. 77 (1916), pp. 103-128. (cf. No.
16)
10. Die Funktionalgleichungen der isomorphen Abbildung.
Math. Ann. 77 (1916), pp. 536-545.

24. Eliminationstheorie und allgemeine

Math. Ann. 90 (1923), pp. 229-261.

J. Ber.

d.

Idealtheorie.

25. Eliminationstheorie und Idealtheorie. J. Ber. d. DMV

33 (1924), pp. 116-120.
26. Abstrakter Aufbau der Idealtheorie im algebraischen
Zahlk
orper. J. Ber. d. DMV 33 (1924), p. 102.
27. Hilbertsche Anzahlen in der Idealtheorie. J. Ber. d.
DMV 34 (1925), p. 101
28. Gruppencharaktere und Idealtheorie. J. Ber. d. DMV
34 (1925), P. 144.
29. Der Endlichkeitssatz der Invarianten endlicher linearer
Gruppen der Charakteristik p. Nachr. v. d. Ges. d.
Wiss. zu G
ottingen 1926, pp. 28-35.

Math.

30. Abstrakter Aufbau der Idealtheorie in algebraischen

Zahl-und Funktionenk
orpern. Math. Ann. 96 (1927),
pp. 26-61.

12. Invarianten beliebiger Differentialausdr

ucke. Nachr.
v. d. ges. d. Wiss. zu G
ottingen 1918. pp. 37-44.

31. Der Diskriminantensatz f

ur die Ordnungen eines algebraischen Zahl - oder Funktionenk
orpers. Journal f.
d. reine u. angew. Math. 157 (1927), pp. 82-104.

11. Gleichungen mit vorgeschriebener Gruppe.

Ann 78 (1918), pp. 221-229. (cf. No. 16).

13. Invariante Variationsprobleme. Nachr. v. d. Ges. d.

Wiss. zu G
ottingen 1918, pp. 235-257.
14. Die arithmetische Theorie der algebraischen Funktionen einer Ver
anderlichen in ihrer Beziehung zu den
u
brigen Theorien und zu der Zahlk
orpertheorie. J.
Ber. d. DMV 28 (1919), pp. 182-203.
15. Die Endlichkeit des Systems der ganzzahligen Invarianten bin
arer Formen. Nachr. v. d. Ges. d. Wiss. zu
G
ottingen 1919, pp. 138-156.
16. Zur Reihenentwicklung in der Formentheorie. Math.
Ann. 81 (1920), pp. 25-30.
17. Moduln in nichtkommutativen Bereichen, insbesondere aus Differential- und Differen-zenaus-dr
ucken.
Co-authored by W. Schmeidler. Math. Zs. 8 (1920),
pp. 1-35.

25

32. Uber
minimale Zerf
allungsk
orper irreduzibler Darstellungen. Co-authored by R. Brauer. Sitz. Ber.
d.Preuss. Akad. d. Wiss. 1927, pp. 221-228
33. Hyperkomplexe Gr
oss en und Darstellungstheorie in
arithmetischer Auffassung. Atti Congresso Bologna 2
(1928), pp. 71-73.
34. Hyperkomplexe Gr
ossen und Darstellungstheorie.
Math. Zs. 30 (1929), pp. 641-692.

35. Uber
Maximalbereiche aus ganzzahligen Funktionen.
Rec. Soc. Math. Moscou 36 (1929), pp. 65-72.
36. Idealdifferentiation und Differente. J. Ber. d. DMV
39 (1930), p. 17.
37. Normalbasis bei K
orpern ohne h
ohere Verzweigung.
Journal f. d. reine u. angew. Math. 167 (1932), pp.
147-152.

38. Beweis eines Hauptsatzes in der Theorie der Algebren.

Co-authored by R. Brauer and H. Hasse. Journal f. d.
reine u. angew. Math. 167 (1932), pp. 399-404.
39. Hyperkomplexe Systeme in ihren Beziehungen zur
kommutativen Algebra und zur Zahlentheorie. Verhandl. Intern. Math.-KongreZ
urich 1 (1932), pp.
189-194.
40. Nichtkommutative Algebren. Math. Zs. 37 (1933),
pp. 514-541.
41. Der
Hauptgeschlechtssatz
f
ur
relativgaloissche Zahlk
orper. Math. Ann. 108 (1933), pp.
411-419.
42. Zerfallende verschr
ankte Produkte und ihre Maximalordnungen. Actualit
es scientifiques et industrielles
148 (1934) (15 pages).
43. Idealdifferentiation und Differente. Journal f. d. reine
u. angew. Math. 188 (1950), pp. 1-21.

26

APPENDIX B: EXCERPT FROM HABILITATION SUBMISSION.

Noether characterized her published papers from the period 1907 to 1918 in her submission for Habilitation. The submission reads in part (number insertions refer to the list of
publications in Appendix A):
My dissertation and a later paper ... belong to the theory of formal invariants, as was
natural for me as a student of Gordan. The lengthiest paper, Fields and Systems of Rational
Functions (6) concerns questions about general bases; it completely solves the problem of
rational representation and contributes to the solution of other finiteness problems. An
application of these results is contained in The Finiteness Theorem for Invariants of Finite
Groups (7) which offers an absolutely elementary proof by actually finding a basis. To this
line of investigation also belongs the paper Algebraic Equations with Prescribed Group
(11) which is a contribution to the construction of such equations for any field range.... The
paper Integral Rational Representation of Invariants (8) proves valid a conjecture of D.
Hilbert ... With these wholly algebraic works belong two additional works .... A Proof of
finiteness for Integral Binary Invariants (15) ... and an investigation with W. Schmeidler of
noncommutative one-sided modules... Alternatives with Nonlinear Systems of Equations...
The longer work The Most General Ranges of Completely Transcendental Numbers (9)
uses along with algebraic and number-theoretic techniques some abstract set theory ...In
this same direction is the paper Functional Equations and Isomorphic Mapping (10) which
yields the most general isomorphic mapping of an arbitrarily abstractly defined field. Finally,
there are two works on differential invariants and variation problems (12,13)... [4]

27

APPENDIX C: TITLES FROM A

RECENT ISSUE OF CURRENT
CONTENTS

15. V. A. Dorodnitsyn The Finite-Difference Analogy of

Noether Theorem, Dokl. Akad. Nauk, 328 678 (1993).

1. V. Iyer and R.M. Wald, Some Properties of the

Noether Charge and a Proposal for Dynamical Black
Hole Entropy, Phys. Rev. D 50, 846, 1994.
2. O. Castanos, R. Lopezpena and V. I. Manko, Noether
Theorem and Time-dependent Quantum Invariants, J.
Phys. A: Mathematical and General, 27, 1751 (1994).
3. M. Forger, J. Laartz and U. Schaper, The Algebra of
the Energy-momentum Tensor and the Noether Currents in Classical Non-linear Sigma Models, Commun.
Math. Phy. 159, 319 (1994).
4. P. G. Henriques, The Noether Theorem and the Reduction Procedure for the Variational Calculus in the
Context of Differential Systems, Comptes Rendus De
L Academie Des Sciences Serie I-Mathematique 317,
987 (1993).
5. R. M. Wald, Black Hole Entropy is the Noether
Charge, Phys. Rev. D 48 N8:R3427 (1993).
6. Z. P. Li, Generalized Noether Theorem and PoincareCartan Integral Invariant for Singular High-order
Langrangian in Fields Theories, Science in China
Series-A-Mathematics Physics Astronomy Technological Sciences 36, 1212 (1993).
7. D. E. Neuenschwander and S. R. Starkey, Adiabatic
Invariance Derived from the Rund-Trautman Identity
and Noether Theorem, Am. J. Phys. 61, 1008 (1993).
8. L. Lusanna, The Shanmugadhasan Canonical Transformation, Function Groups and the Extended 2nd
Noether Theorem, International Journal of Modern
Physics A, 8, 4193 (1993).
9. A. Weldo, Hard Thermal Loops and their Noether
Currents, Can. J. Phys. 71, N5-6:300 (1993).
10. A. Milinski, Skolem-Noether Theorems and Coalgebra
Actions, Communications in Algebra 21, 3719 (1993).
11. Z. P. Li, Noether Theorem and its Inverse Theorem in
Canonical Formalisam for Nonholonomic Nonconservative Singular System, Chinese Science Bulletin 38,
1143 (1993).
12. F. M. Mahomed, A. H. Kara and P. G. L.
Leach, Lie and Noether Counting Theorems for OneDimensional Systems, Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 178 116 (1993). N1:116-129.
13. G. Reinish and J. C. Fernandez, Noether Theorem
and the Mechanics of Nonlinear Solitary Waves, Phys.
Rev. B: Condensed Matter 48 853 (1993).
14. A. I. Tuzik, On the Noether Conditions of One Dual
Discreet Equation of Convolution Type with almost
Stabilizing Multipliers, Dokl. Akad. Nauk Belarusi,
37 118 (1993).

28

16. M. Forger and J. Laartz The Algebra of the EnergyMomentum Tensor and the Noether Currents in Offcritical WZNW Models, Modern Physics Letters A., 8
803 (1993).
17. X. C. GAO, J. B. Xu, T. Z. Qian and J. Gao Quantum Basic Invariants and Classical Noethern Theorem, Physica Scripta, 47 488 (1993).
18. N. A. Lemos Symmetries, Noether Theorem and Inequivalent Lagrangians Applied to Nonconservative
Systems, Revista Mexicana De Fisica, 39 304 (1993).
19. J. L. Colliotthelene The Noether-Lefschetz Theorem
and Sums of 4 Squares in the Rational Function Field
R(X,Y), Compositio Mathematica, 86 235 (1993).
20. S. Caenepeel Computing The Brauer-Long Group of a
Hopf Algebra. 2. The Skolem-Noether Theory, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra, 84 107 (1993).
21. Z. P. Li Generalized Noether Theorems in Canonical
Formalism for Field Theories and their applications,
Int. J. Theor. Physi. 32 201 (1993).
22. O. Castanos and R. Lopezpena Noether Theorem and
Accidental Degeneracy, J. Physi A: Mathematical and
General 25 6685 (1992).
23. X. Gracia and J. M. Pons A Hamiltonian Approach
to Lagrangian Noether Transformations, J. Physi. A:
Mathematical and General 25 6357 (1992).
24. K. Kurano Noether Normalizations for Local Rings of
Algebraic Varieties, Proceedings of American Mathematical Society 116 905 (1992).
25. L. B. Szabados On Canonical Pseudotensors, Sparling
form and Noether Currents, Classical and Quantum
Gravity 9 2521 (1992).
26. E. Gonzalezacosta and M. G. Coronagalindo Noether
Theorem and the Invariants for Dissipative and
Driven Dissipative Like Systems, Revista Mexicana
De Fisica 38 511 (1992).
27. S. L. Guo Noether (Artin) Classical Quotient Rings of
Duo Rings and Projectivity and Injectivity of Simple
Modules over Duo Rings, Chinese Science Bulletin 37
877 (1992).
28. X. C. Gao , J. B. Xu and J. Gao A New Approach to
the Study of Noether Invariants and Symmetry Algebras, Prog. Theor. Phys. 87 861 (1992).
29. Z. P. Li Noether Theorems in Canonical Formalism
and their Applications, Chinese Science Bulletin 37
258 (1992).
30. J. Krause Some Remarks on the Generalized Noether
Theory of Point Summetry Transformations of the Lagrangian, J. Phys. A: Mathematical and General 25
991 (1992).

31. M. Kobayashi On Noether Inequality for Threefolds,

Journal of the Mathematical Society of Japan 44 145
(1992).

47. J. Stevens A Generalisation of Noether Formula for

the Number of Virtual Double Points to Space Curve
Singularities, Archiv der Mathematik 56 96 (1991).

32. S. K. Luo Generalized Noether Theorem for Variable

Mass Higher-order Nonholonomic Mechanical Systems in Noninertial Reference Frames, Chinese Science Bulletin 36 1930 (1991).

48. A. F. Lopez Noether-Lefschetz Theory and the Picard

Group of Projective Surfaces, Memoirs of the American Mathematica Society, 89 438 (1991).

33. G. Dzhangibekov On the Conditions of Noether Property and Index of some 2-Dimensional Singular Integral Operators, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 319 811
(1991).
34. R. D. Sorkin The Gravitational Electromagnetic
Noether Operator and the 2nd-Order Energy Flux,
Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A. 435 635 (1991).
35. C. Cilibeto and A. F. Lopez On the Existence
of Components of the Noether-Lefschetz Locus with
Given Codimension, Manuscripta Mathematica 73
341 (1991).
36. J. F. Carinena. Fernandeznunez and E. Martinez
A Geometric Approach to Noether 2nd Theorem in
Time-Dependentr Lagrangian Mechanics, Letters in
Mathematical Physics 23 51 (1991).
37. V. G. Kravchenko and G. S. Litvinchuk Noether Theory of Unbounded Singular Integral Operators with a
Carleman Shift, Mathematical Notes 49 45 (1991).
38. M. Koppinen A Skolem-Noether Theorem for Coalgebra Measurings, Archiv Der Mathematik 57 34 (1991).
39. I. C. Moreira and M. A. Almeida Noether Symmetries and the Swinging Atwood Machine, Journal De
Physique II. 1 711 (1991)

49. O. Castanos, A. Frank and R. Lopezpena Noether

Theorem and Dynamical Groups in Quantum Mechanics, Journal Phy. A: Mathematical and General
23 5141 (1990).
50. G. Profilo and G. Soliani Noether Invariants and Complete Lie-Point Symmetries for Equations of the Hill
Type, Prog. of Theor. Phys. 84 974 (1990).
51. J. D. McCrea, F. W. Hehl and E. W. Mielke Mapping
Noether Identities into Bianchi Identities in General
Relativistic Theories of Gravity and in the Field Theory of Static Lattice Defects, Int. J. Theor. Physi. 29
1185 (1990).
52. J. F. Zhang Generalized Noether Theorem of HighOrder Nonholonomic Nonconservative Dynamical
Systems, Chinese Science Buletin 35 1758 (1990).
53. M. Beattie and K. H. Ulbrich A Skolem-Noether Theorem for Hopf Algebra Actions, Communications in
Algebra 18 3713 (1990).
54. C. Ferrario and A. Passerini Symmetries and Constants of Motion for Constrained Lagrangian Systems
- A Presymplectic Version of the Noether Theorem, J.
Physi. A: Mathematical and General 23 5061 (1990).
55. O. Debarre and Y. Laszlo Noether-Lefschetz Locus for
Abelian Varieties, Comptes Rendus De L. Academie
Des Sciences Series I-Mathematique 311 337 (1990).

40. B. Y. Shteinberg, The Noether Property and the Index

of Multidimensional Convolutions with Coefficients of
Fast Oscillating Type, Siberian Mathematical Journal
31 682 (1990).

56. H. Zainuddin Noether Theorem in Nonlinear SigmaModels with a Wess-Zumino Term, J. Math. Phy. 31
2225 (1990).

41. L. Lusanna The 2nd Noether Theorem as the Basis of

the Theory of Singular Lagrangians and Hamiltonians
Constraints, Rivista Del Nuovo Cimento 14 1 (1990).

57. Z. P. Li and X. Li Generalized Noether Theorem

and Poincare Invariant for Nonconservative Nonholonomic Systems, Int. J. Theor. Phy. 29 765 (1990).

42. S. O. Kim Noether-Lefschetz Locus for Surfaces,

Transactions of the American Mathematical Society
324 369 (1991).

58. C. Voisin Noether-Lefschetz Locus in 6th and 7th Degrees, Compositio Mathematica 75 47 (1990).

43. H. A. Alkuwari and M. O. Taha Noether Theorem and

Local Gauge Invariance, Am. J. Phys. 59 363 (1991).
44. F. A. Lunev Analog of Noether Theorem for NonNoether and Nonlocal Symmetries, Theoretical and
Mathematical Physics 84 816 (1990).
45. Z. P. Li and X. Li Generalized Noether Theorems and
Applications, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 30 225 (1991).
46. H. Aratyn E. Nissimov and S. Pacheva InfiniteDimensional Noether Symmetry Groups and Quantum Effective Actions from Geometry, Phys. Lett B.
255 359 (1991).

29

59. I. C. Moreira On Noether Theorem for TimeDependent Oscillators - Comment, Europhysics Letters 12 391 (1990).
60. H. Aratyn E. Nissimov, S. Pacheva and A. H. Zimerman The Noether Theorem for Geometric Actions and
Area Preserving Diffeomorphisms on the Torus, Phys.
Lett. B 242 377 (1990).
61. J. Castellanos Hamburger-Noether Matrices over
Rings, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 64 7
(1990).
62. Y. I. Karlovich and I. M. Spitkovskii Factorization
of Almost Periodic Matrix-Valued Functions and the
Noether Theory for Certain Classes of Equations of
Convolution Type, Mathematics of the USSR-Izvestiya
53 281 (1989).

63. X. Wu On a Conjecture of Griffiths-Harris Generalizing the Noether-Lefschetz Theorem, Duke Mathematical Journal 60 465 (1990).
64. I. Y. Krivskii and V. M. Simulik Noether Analysis
of Zilch Conservation Laws and Their Generalization for the Electromagnetic Field 2; Use of PoincareInvariant Formulation of the Principle of Least Action. Theoretical and Mathematical Physics 80 912
(1989).
65. I. Y. Krivskii and V. M. Simulik Noether Analysis of
Zilch, Conservation Laws and their Generalization for
the Electromagnetic Field 1; Use of Different Formulations of the Principle of Least Action, Theoretical
and Mathematical Physics 80 864 (1989).
66. D. A. Cox The Noether-Lefschetz Locus of Regular Elliptic Surfaces with Section and PG Greater-Than-orEqual-to 2, American Journal of Mathematics 112 289
(1990).
67. D. L. Karatas and K. L. Kowalski Noether Theorem
for Local Gauge Transformations, Am. J. Physics 58
123 (1990).
68. Z. Y. Gu and S. W. Qian Noether Theorem Invariants
for a Time-Dependent Damped Harmonic Oscillator
with a Force Quadratic in Velocity, Europhysics Letters, 10 615 (1989).
69. C. Voisin Small Dimension Components of the
Noether-Lefschetz Locus, Commentarii Mathematici
Helvetici 64 515 (1989).
70. L. Moretbailly The Noether-Formula for Arithmetic
Surfaces, Inventiones Mathematicae 98 491 (1989).
71. T. Maeda Noether Problem for A5, Journal of Algebra
125 418 (1989)
72. E. W. Mielke, F. W. Hehl and J. D. McCrea Belinfante Type Invariance of the Noether Identities in a
Riemannian and a Weitzenbock Spacetime, Phy. Lett.
A 140 368 (1989)

30

REFERENCES
[1] Clark Kimberling in Emmy Noether, A Tribute to Her Life and Work; James W. Brewer
and Martha K. Smith, ed.; Marcel Dekker, Inc.
[2] E. Noether, Invariante Variationsprobleme, Nachr. d. Konig. Gesellsch. d. Wiss. zu
Gottingen, Math-phys. Klasse (1918), 235-257.
[3] F. Klein, Zu Hilberts erster Note u
ber die Grundlagen der Physik, Nachr. d. Konig.
Gesellsch. d. Wiss. zu Gottingen, Math-phys. Klasse (1918), This contains an exchange
of letters with David Hilbert. It is the first of two Notes he published on energy conservation in general relativity in this journal in 1918. Both are reprinted in his collected
works; see Ref. [6].
[4] Auguste Dick, Emmy Noether (1882 -1935), Birkhauser 1981; English translation by H.
I. Blocher.
[5] M. A. Tavel, Transport Theory and Statistical Physics 1(3), 1971, 183-207. This is an
English translation of Ref. [2].
[6] Felix Klein, Gesammelte mathematische Abhandlungen, erster band pp. 568-585. The
correspondence of Klein and Hilbert on this is in the same volume pp.551-567. On p.
559 Klein writes that he has discussed with Noether and found that she already had
a manuscript on this written but not published; and in Hilberts reply he says he had
asked Emmy Noether to look into the energy conservation problem.
[7] H. Weyl, Memorial address published in Scripta Mathematica III. 3 (1935) 201-220, and
reprinted as an appendix in Ref. [4].
[8] A. Pais,Subtle is the Lord, Oxford University Press (1982).
[9] H. Weyl, Space-Time-Matter, Dover Publications, Inc.; H Browse tr. .
[10] B. L. van der Waerden, Mathematische Annalen 111 (1935), 469-474; this is a beautiful
and eloquent obituary for her. See also the account of her work in his book A History
of Algebra - from al-Khwarizmi to Emmy Noether, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
[11] H. A. Kastrup in Symmetries in Physics (1600-1980), M.G. Doncel, A. Hermann, L.
Michel, A. Pais ed.; Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona (1987); pp. 140-142 reports his
study of the literature. In footnote 166, Kastrup reports a letter from A. S. Wightman
that says that although it is true that theoretical physicists did not quote E. Noethers
paper in the forties, a number of them were quite aware of it.
[12] D. Hilbert and R. Courant, Methods of Mathematical Physics, New York, Interscience
Publishers; 1953. p262 ff.
31

[13] Abraham Pais, Inward Bound, Clarendon Press, Oxford (1986).

[14] L. Meitner, Phys. Zeitschr. 30, 515, 1929; and L. Meitner and W. Orthmann, Zeitschr.
f. Phys. 60, 143, 1930. Cf., also, Ref. [13].
[15] P. A. M. Dirac, Nature, 137, 298, 1936.
[16] J. L. Lawson, Phys. Rev., 56, 131 (1939); A. W. Tyler, Phys. Rev. 56, 125 (1939); see
also J. L. Lawson and J. M. Cork, Phys. Rev. 57, 982 (1940).
[17] C. L. Cowan et al., Science 124, 103 (1956); F. Reines and C. L. Cowan, Phys. Rev. 92,
830 (1953).
[18] H. Weyl, The Theory of Groups and Quantum Mechanics, Dover Pub.; H. P. Robertson
tr..
[19] N. N. Bogoliubov and D. V. Shirkov, Introduction to the Theory of Quantized Fields;
Interscience Publishers, New York (1959); G. M. Volkoff tr. ... This is the English
translation. The preface to the Russian edition is dated February 1957, Moscow.
[20] Gregor Wentzel, Quantum Theory of Fields; Interscience Publishers, New York (1949);
C. Houtermans and J. M. Jauch, tr. German edition published by Franz Deuticke, Wien
(1943).
[21] W. Pauli and W. Heisenberg, Z. Phys. 59, 168, 1930.
[22] R. P. Feynman and M. Gell-Mann, Phys. Rev. 109, 193 (1958).
[23] J. Schwinger, Ann. of Phys. 2, 407 (1957).
[24] David Gross, these Proceedings.
[25] Private communication for inclusion in these Proceedings.
[26] Introduction to Emmy Noether, Collected Papers, ed. Nathan Jacobson, Springer- Verlag, 1983.
[27] E. T. Tomboulis, work in progress.
[28] Eric DHoker and Steven Weinberg, preprint UCLA/94/TEP/25; hep-ph 9409402.
[29] P. S. Alexandrov, Proceedings of the Moscow Mathematical Society, 1936, 2.
[30] G. Birkhoff, Amer. Math. Mon. 80, 760; correction 81 (1974) 746 as quoted in Ref. [1]
[31] A. Einstein, Letter to the Editor of the New York Times, May 5, 1935; written on the
occasion of her death. The Letter can be found in ref. [4]. It is worth reading in its
entirety.
[32] M. Noether, Math. Ann. 2, 293 (1869); ibid. 6, 351 (1872). .

32